Sad Realization

Erm, I don't have any choice in this matter. The boss says do it, so I have to do it. This isn't something I can say, "Oh that? Yeah that's stupid, let's not do that."
 
jtrain609 said:
Erm, I don't have any choice in this matter. The boss says do it, so I have to do it. This isn't something I can say, "Oh that? Yeah that's stupid, let's not do that."
Click to expand...

Just ""Oh that? Yeah that's stupid......" Lol!
Usually these protections are there for good reason with additional safety margin built in since the stakes are high.

My issue is more with the belief that 1.3Vso uncorrected is fine because jets don't pick up sufficient amounts of ice to warrant an adjusted Vapp.
 
Last edited:
Saab has begun installing a similar system for ICE on the Saab and recommends adding the speed on the approach. It has had some problems during it's roll out.

The E170 says the tail won't build ice, which is BS. I've landed with that tail pretty iced up in ORD


I still like the old school approach. If the pilot wants Engine or Wing A/I he or see can turn it on/off as needed. If you want install a simple ice prob on the aircraft to remind the pilot they are picking up ice
 
jtrain609 said:
Stall Prot Ice Speeds has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever seen in my life. On the -145 when you got SPS Ice Speed, the system would automatically adjust the AOA at which you'd get the shaker. No input from the pilot necessary, and no change in approach speed. On the JungleBus-175, Stall Prot Ice Speed can give you a ref speed of 160 on an 85 degree day in Houston because you banged through some ice in the top of a cloud while coming out of DTW.

It's tied with the yoke for the worst decision decision on the aircraft.
Click to expand...

I agree the logic should be able to account for temperature and unlatch Stall Prot Ice. It's silly to fly into San Juan with the system adjusting the stick shaker speeds in case there's ice.

The airplane does fly better with the extra speed though. At least on the 190 it does.
 
Bandit_Driver said:
Saab has begun installing a similar system for ICE on the Saab and recommends adding the speed on the approach. It has had some problems during it's roll out.

The E170 says the tail won't build ice, which is BS. I've landed with that tail pretty iced up in ORD


I still like the old school approach. If the pilot wants Engine or Wing A/I he or see can turn it on/off as needed. If you want install a simple ice prob on the aircraft to remind the pilot they are picking up ice
Click to expand...

I disagree on the old school approach. The current setup on the 170 provides one level of safety for all, and it's set up on the conservative side of things. You don't have to worry about flying with a guy who thinks the airplane can "handle more ice than this" or "doesn't ice up" and so on. The fact is all aircraft can encounter icing conditions far worse than the level at which they are certified ....... and the tail is an unprotected surface.
 
Last edited:
PhilosopherPilot said:
I agree the logic should be able to account for temperature and unlatch Stall Prot Ice. It's silly to fly into San Juan with the system adjusting the stick shaker speeds in case there's ice.

The airplane does fly better with the extra speed though. At least on the 190 it does.
Click to expand...

This is the lesser of two evils I suppose. An inconvenient by product of a higher level of safety. I just try to remember to reduce power earlier on landing (on the 170) and it works out the same anyway, or use flaps full.
 
unclenobby said:
I disagree on the old school approach. The current setup on the 170 provides one level of safety for all, and it's set up on the conservative side of things. You don't have to worry about flying with a guy who thinks the airplane can "handle more ice than this" or "doesn't ice up" and so on. The fact is all aircraft can encounter icing conditions far worse than the level at which they are certified ....... and the tail is an unprotected surface.
Click to expand...

IMO the 170 has been plagued with poor programming since day one. How do you think it got the nickname the 180. When you try to account for all conditions and take the pilot out of his job you actually reduce safety some regimes.
 
Bandit_Driver said:
IMO the 170 has been plagued with poor programming since day one. How do you think it got the nickname the 180. When you try to account for all conditions and take the pilot out of his job you actually reduce safety some regimes.
Click to expand...

The last time you flew the 170, I was in undergraduate.
 
Bandit_Driver said:
IMO the 170 has been plagued with poor programming since day one. How do you think it got the nickname the 180. When you try to account for all conditions and take the pilot out of his job you actually reduce safety some regimes.
Click to expand...

The dispatch reliability of that airplane is no different to others. I'm sure when it came online first there were at lot of return to gates, resets etc. Not the case in my limited experience on it (1.5 yrs)

As far as automation goes, give me an automation feature that has decreased safety on that airplane, or any other?

The problem lies in the interaction with automation, misunderstanding it's functions and finally unwillingness to peel back the levels of automation until you are left with just another airplane. This is a function of training and culture and not on the automation itself.
 
Bandit_Driver said:
IMO the 170 has been plagued with poor programming since day one. How do you think it got the nickname the 180. When you try to account for all conditions and take the pilot out of his job you actually reduce safety some regimes.
Click to expand...

It took that name from the E145.

Then again, I've had WAY more issues with the 748 than the first E170s.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
I'm not sure why we do it that way. Do you use Aerodata?

I know that Lufthansa uses Stall Prot Ice speeds on every approach. I wish we did. I hate how the plane feels when you are at normal approach speeds.
Click to expand...

@PhilosopherPilot

I honestly don't know what we use for performance on the 190. All I know is the numbers get sent off and the box then gives me a final weight and balance report that is input in to the MCDU.

I have heard that sometime during the remainder of the merger, it will shift to us sending the data off rather than it simply being sent to us after ground ops enters the appropriate numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top